6 ms·

Great overview of how ads work, but the rant is still valid. As the end, the environment around us will end up to be very similar to one described in the movie

by tlogan 15y ago

Great overview of how ads work, but the rant is still valid. As the end, the environment around us will end up to be very similar to one described in the movie Idiocracy.

crusso 15y ago
Yeah, but the blame the article's author espouses is misplaced. It's not Google's fault that people want to play games any more than it's the sun's fault that it's shining outside of my window on days when I need to get real work done. As usual it's easier to blame icons and officials in situations where really it's the consumers that drive these corporate decisions with their everyday decisions. Granted, Google is showing self-serving ads that benefit it... but then again, maybe that site the opinion writer was reading is only possible because Google Adwords funds it. That part is a wash to me. Sure, there's something sad in all this. It's sad that people want to play mindless games, watch sports, watch reality tv, etc. instead of learning and growing 99% of the time (or whatever) when given the choice. I don't really fault entertainers for providing the entertainment, though.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  I don't think the blame is misplaced - raganwald addresses your point in the post, that "whatever people click on is obviously right", and that it's a cop-out. Yeah, a lot of people will choose a Big Mac over a salad, and a lot of people will scarf down fried chicken before a sandwich - that doesn't make their choices optimal, either for themselves or for society at large. You're also discounting the enormous effect policy has. We've gone from a nation of chain-smokers to one where I don't have to walk through clouds of smoke to get from A to B, and this has largely been driven not by some phenomenal and accidental change in social norms, but by a concerted effort of government and individuals. So it's not so much blaming Google, as to say that with Google's money, intelligence, and influence that we can be putting this "remnant inventory" to socially higher causes, rather than try to collect a pittance on it by hawking scams and get-rich-quick schemes.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    Yes, government policy has a huge effect, for one it created the nation of chain smokers. What Google does is monetize the products of our school system, the school system produces mindless consumers incapable of producing on their own. Google connects these dependents of the state to the people who can produce the goods they need to live. If you want to change what Google promotes simply transform the school system into an education system predicated upon critical and independent thought. By transforming the school system you'll have solved a whole host of social problems, the least of which will be ads hawking get rich quick schemes.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      I'm in favor of a lot of ways to fix this problem. What I cannot abide is the whole "people are stupid and want stupid things, I'm just fulfilling their stupid demands" excuse. What hope does this world have when its best and brightest are content with swindling money out of the ill-informed?
      - tweak2live 15y ago
        None, whatsoever. But what alternative do the "best and the brightest" have? After all, in order to keep being "the best and the brightest" they do need to pay rent (and have an occasional steak dinner). What value is there in educating if one can simply purchase social capital when one needs it? Exhibit A: http://www.facebook.com/BPTeamUSA http://www.facebook.com/BPTeamUSA Exhibit B: http://www.altria.com/en/cms/Responsibility/investing-in-communities/programs/employee-involvement/volunteers-gifts-dollars/default.aspx http://www.altria.com/en/cms/Responsibility/investing-in-com...
        potatolicious 15y ago
        > "After all, in order to keep being "the best and the brightest" they do need to pay rent (and have an occasional steak dinner)." Plenty of people pay rent and eat well and aren't complicit in scams and get-rich-quick schemes. Plenty of people have jobs that pay well and don't pander to the lowest common denominator and reinforce ignorance...
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >It's not Google's fault that people want to play games // In the same way it's not the drug dealers fault that people [who they actively sought to get addicted] want to buy drugs [in excesses that will most likely see them to an early grave].
- rbarooah 15y ago
  If you ask me for help with your homework, I could recommend a relevant and informative documentary I happen to know about, or I could tell you to forget your homework and play a game, because I'm getting a commission from the games company. Clearly you are responsible for taking my advice or not, but am I not also responsible for the choices I offer you?
  - crusso 15y ago
    I dunno. Am I paying you for your advice or are am I getting it for free? What right or expectation do I have to assume that you're giving me good homework advice? Are you a friend of mine? Am I relying upon my past experience? If I'm not paying you, you're not a friend of mine, you're just some marketer paying sites to show your ads... I expect no real value from them. I almost never click on Google Ads embedded in web pages, so I don't understand the blame game going on. Some suckers do click on them. They pay for free web content. Who am I do bite the hand that feeds us for free?
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      It sounds like you live in a world where people only take responsibility for the consequences of their actions if they are paid to do so.
      - crusso 15y ago
        I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "take responsibility". I'm reacting mostly to those two words since they have legal ramifications. You tell me what you mean by "take responsibility", and I'll tell you whether or not I think that there should be a business or binding legal relationship before someone should be compelled to "take responsibility".
        rbarooah 15y ago
        Is there no room in your worldview for values that aren't imposed by force?
rmc 15y ago
People have been complaining that society will turn into "Idiocracy" (or similar) for generations. The Roman satirist Jeuvanal complained (in 100 CE) that modern people only cared for "bread and circuses" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses
- janardanyri 15y ago
  As both your link and the broader scope of European history indicate, Roman society of 100 CE was in fact in the midst of a many-generations-long decline into irrelevance, so this is perhaps an unintentionally apt citation.
  - rmc 15y ago
    Well that depends. Comparing Europe now and 100, 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 years ago makes now appear much better on various metrics: political & military stability, human rights, women's rights, life expantency, death from disease and plague, famine, social equality, the wealth of the lower 50% of the population, gay rights, racism, manual labour, religious toleration, etc. etc.
    - janardanyri 15y ago
      As tlogan's response notes, the distinction to draw in judging 100CE-era commentary is not between Europe in 100CE and now, but rather between Europe in 100CE and the ensuing decades and centuries, which demonstrated that the naysayers of 100CE Europe were completely justified. That things then swung back upward again is cold comfort to the ancient Romans and does not demonstrate that things could not swing downward for our civilization.
- tlogan 15y ago
  The history goes in waves... The great Roman culture was in generational long decline and eventually replaced by "Dark ages". "Idiocracy" is basically something like "Dark ages".

by tlogan 15y ago

Great overview of how ads work, but the rant is still valid. As the end, the environment around us will end up to be very similar to one described in the movie Idiocracy.

crusso 15y ago

Yeah, but the blame the article's author espouses is misplaced. It's not Google's fault that people want to play games any more than it's the sun's fault that it's shining outside of my window on days when I need to get real work done. As usual it's easier to blame icons and officials in situations where really it's the consumers that drive these corporate decisions with their everyday decisions. Granted, Google is showing self-serving ads that benefit it... but then again, maybe that site the opinion writer was reading is only possible because Google Adwords funds it. That part is a wash to me. Sure, there's something sad in all this. It's sad that people want to play mindless games, watch sports, watch reality tv, etc. instead of learning and growing 99% of the time (or whatever) when given the choice. I don't really fault entertainers for providing the entertainment, though.

potatolicious 15y ago
I don't think the blame is misplaced - raganwald addresses your point in the post, that "whatever people click on is obviously right", and that it's a cop-out. Yeah, a lot of people will choose a Big Mac over a salad, and a lot of people will scarf down fried chicken before a sandwich - that doesn't make their choices optimal, either for themselves or for society at large. You're also discounting the enormous effect policy has. We've gone from a nation of chain-smokers to one where I don't have to walk through clouds of smoke to get from A to B, and this has largely been driven not by some phenomenal and accidental change in social norms, but by a concerted effort of government and individuals. So it's not so much blaming Google, as to say that with Google's money, intelligence, and influence that we can be putting this "remnant inventory" to socially higher causes, rather than try to collect a pittance on it by hawking scams and get-rich-quick schemes.
- fleitz 15y ago
  Yes, government policy has a huge effect, for one it created the nation of chain smokers. What Google does is monetize the products of our school system, the school system produces mindless consumers incapable of producing on their own. Google connects these dependents of the state to the people who can produce the goods they need to live. If you want to change what Google promotes simply transform the school system into an education system predicated upon critical and independent thought. By transforming the school system you'll have solved a whole host of social problems, the least of which will be ads hawking get rich quick schemes.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    I'm in favor of a lot of ways to fix this problem. What I cannot abide is the whole "people are stupid and want stupid things, I'm just fulfilling their stupid demands" excuse. What hope does this world have when its best and brightest are content with swindling money out of the ill-informed?
    - tweak2live 15y ago
      None, whatsoever. But what alternative do the "best and the brightest" have? After all, in order to keep being "the best and the brightest" they do need to pay rent (and have an occasional steak dinner). What value is there in educating if one can simply purchase social capital when one needs it? Exhibit A: http://www.facebook.com/BPTeamUSA http://www.facebook.com/BPTeamUSA Exhibit B: http://www.altria.com/en/cms/Responsibility/investing-in-communities/programs/employee-involvement/volunteers-gifts-dollars/default.aspx http://www.altria.com/en/cms/Responsibility/investing-in-com...
      - potatolicious 15y ago
        > "After all, in order to keep being "the best and the brightest" they do need to pay rent (and have an occasional steak dinner)." Plenty of people pay rent and eat well and aren't complicit in scams and get-rich-quick schemes. Plenty of people have jobs that pay well and don't pander to the lowest common denominator and reinforce ignorance...
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>It's not Google's fault that people want to play games // In the same way it's not the drug dealers fault that people [who they actively sought to get addicted] want to buy drugs [in excesses that will most likely see them to an early grave].
rbarooah 15y ago
If you ask me for help with your homework, I could recommend a relevant and informative documentary I happen to know about, or I could tell you to forget your homework and play a game, because I'm getting a commission from the games company. Clearly you are responsible for taking my advice or not, but am I not also responsible for the choices I offer you?
- crusso 15y ago
  I dunno. Am I paying you for your advice or are am I getting it for free? What right or expectation do I have to assume that you're giving me good homework advice? Are you a friend of mine? Am I relying upon my past experience? If I'm not paying you, you're not a friend of mine, you're just some marketer paying sites to show your ads... I expect no real value from them. I almost never click on Google Ads embedded in web pages, so I don't understand the blame game going on. Some suckers do click on them. They pay for free web content. Who am I do bite the hand that feeds us for free?
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    It sounds like you live in a world where people only take responsibility for the consequences of their actions if they are paid to do so.
    - crusso 15y ago
      I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "take responsibility". I'm reacting mostly to those two words since they have legal ramifications. You tell me what you mean by "take responsibility", and I'll tell you whether or not I think that there should be a business or binding legal relationship before someone should be compelled to "take responsibility".
      - rbarooah 15y ago
        Is there no room in your worldview for values that aren't imposed by force?

rmc 15y ago

People have been complaining that society will turn into "Idiocracy" (or similar) for generations. The Roman satirist Jeuvanal complained (in 100 CE) that modern people only cared for "bread and circuses" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses

janardanyri 15y ago
As both your link and the broader scope of European history indicate, Roman society of 100 CE was in fact in the midst of a many-generations-long decline into irrelevance, so this is perhaps an unintentionally apt citation.
- rmc 15y ago
  Well that depends. Comparing Europe now and 100, 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 years ago makes now appear much better on various metrics: political & military stability, human rights, women's rights, life expantency, death from disease and plague, famine, social equality, the wealth of the lower 50% of the population, gay rights, racism, manual labour, religious toleration, etc. etc.
  - janardanyri 15y ago
    As tlogan's response notes, the distinction to draw in judging 100CE-era commentary is not between Europe in 100CE and now, but rather between Europe in 100CE and the ensuing decades and centuries, which demonstrated that the naysayers of 100CE Europe were completely justified. That things then swung back upward again is cold comfort to the ancient Romans and does not demonstrate that things could not swing downward for our civilization.
tlogan 15y ago
The history goes in waves... The great Roman culture was in generational long decline and eventually replaced by "Dark ages". "Idiocracy" is basically something like "Dark ages".